Xfce Foundation status

[Gilbert Sullivan]

On 10/15/2010 07:55 AM, Gilbert Sullivan wrote:
> On 10/14/2010 11:15 PM, Auke Kok wrote:
>> On 10/14/2010 02:36 PM, Gilbert Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> * There is one clause about where the raised money should go in case
>>>> the e.V. is abandoned. The KDE people have decided to forward all
>>>> their money to UNESCO. I have come up with a few alternatives.
>>>> Which of the following organizations would you prefer the money to
>>>> be handed over to in case the e.V. is closed?
>>>>
>>>> UNESCO, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, WWF or OLPC?
>>>>
>>>> You can of course make your own suggestions if you want to.
>>>
>>> I've seen some discussion about "provocative" organizations. Heck, the
>>> whole idea of FOSS is provocative to all those folks and governments who
>>> seem delighted to spend gobs of money on crappy software in order to get
>>> the latest "shiny" stuff.
>>>
>>> You could support the Sea Shepherds for all I care. I'm an old hippie,
>>> and any effort or contribution which either reduces the suffering of
>>> people or the planet, or which sticks a thumb in the eye of the
>>> "establishment" (and I mean just about ANY establishment) is peachy with
>>> me. Naturally, it would be nice if this provision accommodates the
>>> sensibilities of the greatest number of Xfce's technical and monetary
>>> contributors.
>>
>> The whole idea about not picking a (potentially) provocative group to
>> donate to is to make sure that nobody has a problem with the eventual
>> abandonment of the foundation if it ever happens. I can only imagine
>> that after 10 more years of UNIX desktop development, groups like the
>> KDE and GNOME foundation might have potentially created some new
>> enemies, and now people would fight fiercely against the dissemination
>> of your foundation, just because of that.
>>
>> So, the safest thing to do is to pick the common denominator, a fund
>> that everyone agrees on is good to give the remainder funds to.
>>
>> Auke
>
> Oh, I understood the reasoning. I also understand that most worthy
> causes are provocative to someone. In this context common denominators
> have a tendency to be better funded than some less popular causes for
> precisely the reasons that have been given voice in this thread.
>
> Nonetheless, if the membership of the proposed organization should feel
> disposed to direct that the proceeds of the organization's possible
> future dissolution to to a less popular cause, I don't see why it
> shouldn't be written that way in the articles.
>
> I don't object to the FSF -- or to any of the other popular
> organizations. As a matter of fact I support the ones which have been
> listed wholeheartedly. I'm just saying that choosing an organization to
> be recipient of the Xfce Foundation's funds in case of the
> organization's dissolution based upon concerns about who might fight
> that dissolution strikes me as a rather dreary way to look at things.
>
> Xfce (and free software) wouldn't exist if the developers and backers
> weren't attracted by risk-taking. I don't think there's any reason why
> the supporting foundation should be averse to taking a stand on
> something provocative -- but if, and only if, the organization's
> membership approves of the stand.
>
> Clearly, this is a moot point since a clear majority of respondents seem
> to be choosing FSF. I support that notion.

Wow! I should have read that over before sending it! I imagine anyone 
who's interested can piece my thoughts together. I'm going to get some 
coffee.